beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eddie O'Neil" <ekon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Question about the next release...
Date Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:10:59 GMT
  #1 wouldn't be a lot of work and is basically just a couple of
changes to revert.  AFAICT, that's my task unless someone else wants
to volunteer.  :)

  The problem with shipping an incomplete feature is exposing
unfinished and unfrozen APIs.  This means that the APIs could change
in the future potentially breaking applications that used such
features, and this doesn't seem desirable.

  Plus, I tend to believe that patch releases should be as stable as
possible to ensure continuity from a previously released version.

  My $0.02.

Eddie



On 10/16/06, Scott Musser <scott.musser@gmail.com> wrote:
> How much work would there be in option #1?
> Naturally it would be cleaner than option #2 but I agree with Carlin that
> either option would work.
> Finishing the partial data set support could then be finished when you have
> time rather than rushing.
> Would the impact of shipping incomplete data set support be disagreeable to
> the rest of the community?
> It would be useful to understand what will the ramifications of shipping
> this incomplete feature might be.
>
>
> On 10/13/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Eddie,
> >
> > Are you thinking there would be some API changes in what you have for
> > the datagrid partial data set support to make it fully baked or just
> > some clean up? I'm not a binding vote but I'd be good with either 1 or
> > 2 (if there's nothing drastic in API changes for data set support).
> >
> > Carlin
> >
> > On 10/13/06, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   Hm -- a new release would be great except...
> > >
> > >   I've started new feature work in trunk/ for supporting partial data
> > > sets; this work isn't baked / frozen yet.  Some options:
> > >
> > > #1) branch, remove the partial data set support, and ship 1.0.2
> > > #2) ship partial data set support as-is in 1.0.2
> > > #3) finish partial data set support and then ship 1.0.2
> > >
> > >   Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Eddie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/5/06, Ken Tam <kentaminator@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > +1 for a 1.0.2 patch release
> > > >
> > > > On 10/2/06, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Agreed -- seems like 1.0.2 to me...
> > > > > Rich
> > > > >
> > > > > Chad Schoettger wrote:
> > > > > > It seems like a patch release to me.  We've fixed a lot of bugs
--
> > I
> > > > > > know that in the controls area there have been a number of bugs
> > fixed
> > > > > > which were found by users using Beehive from within an IDE (many
> > of
> > > > > > them APT related).  Also bugs releated to security and deadlocks
> > have
> > > > > > been addressed as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would be a good thing to get these fixes into a patch
> > > > > > release at this time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  - Chad
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/28/06, Carlin Rogers <carlin.rogers@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I was wondering about the scheduling of the next beehive
release.
> > > > > >> There's been more than 65 bugs and improvements fixed along
with
> > a few
> > > > > >> smaller new features. Some of these seem like good improvements
> > on
> > > > > >> 1.0.1 and worth getting out to the user community. This
includes
> > > > > >> things like a security fix and some page flow deadlock fixes
as
> > well.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What are the thoughts on whether this would be a patch release
(
> > 1.0.2)
> > > > > >> or a point release (1.1)? Just curious what folks where
thinking
> > and
> > > > > >> getting a discussion started.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > >> Carlin
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message